1 2026:CGHC:15325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 38 of 2026 Deepkant Kashyap S/o Shri Vyas Narayan Kashyap Aged About 36 Years Occupation Government Service (Panchkarma Assistant), R/o 551/k Lalbahadur Shastri Ward No. 08, Navagadh, P.S. And Tahsil Navagadh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Kirodimal Govt. Zila Hospital, Aaush Department, Raigarh, District Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Appellant(s) Versus Rudra Kashayap (Minor) S/o Deepkant Kashyap Aged About 7 Years Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Kashyap W/o Deepkant Kashyap, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 551/k Lalbahadur Shastri Ward No. 08, Navagadh, P.S. And Tahsil- Navagadh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Mukund Road Khokhra, Near Swami Atmanand Hindi Medium School Khokhra Janjgir P.S. And Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.02 16:21:52 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/husband seeking transfer of proceedings bearing Case No. 260/2025, instituted under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), to the Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.). 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 11.07.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born, who is respondent herein 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to differences in conduct and temperament, the parties could not continue their matrimonial relationship and had earlier filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Janjgir- Champa, which was dismissed on 27.06.2022 upon withdrawal of consent by the respondent/wife. It is further submitted that thereafter the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home along with the minor child and did not permit the petitioner to meet the child, compelling him to file a custody application under Section 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which is presently pending before the Family Court, Raigarh. It is also submitted that an earlier divorce petition filed by the respondent/wife at Raigarh stood dismissed and an appeal thereagainst is stated to be pending. Learned counsel further contends that the 3 respondent/wife, though residing and employed at Raigarh, has instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, and since both parties and the minor child are residing at Raigarh, the proceedings deserve to be transferred to the Family Court, Raigarh in the interest of justice and convenience. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that although the respondent/minor child are presently residing at Raigarh with his mother/legal guardian, as the mother is working at Raigarh temporarily, the parents of the wife of the petitioner resides at Janjgir-Champa permanently and the respondent/minor child and her mother are also living with her parents ar Janjgir-Champa. Hence, the application under Section 144 of the BNSS has been validly instituted before the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa in accordance with law, and no ground is made out for transfer of the proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is a settled principle of law that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is to be given due and predominant consideration; however, the same is not an absolute rule and each case must be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the proceedings have been instituted by the respondent/wife before a competent court, and no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the said court lacks jurisdiction or that the proceedings are otherwise not maintainable. 4 7. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that both parties are residing at Raigarh and that proceedings relating to custody are also pending before the Family Court, Raigarh. However, it is not in dispute that the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS have been instituted by the respondent before the competent court at Janjgir-Champa. 8. Merely because the petitioner finds it inconvenient to attend the proceedings at Janjgir-Champa, or that some other proceedings are pending at Raigarh, would not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for transfer, particularly when the proceedings have been instituted in accordance with law. 9. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must be satisfied that transfer is necessary in the interest of justice. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated by the petitioner warranting transfer of the proceedings. 10. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent has filed the proceedings with an intent to harass is bald and unsupported by any cogent material. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for transfer is made out. 12. Accordingly, the present transfer petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Rahul